The landlords must prove the bonafide requirement for eviction under Section 10(3)(e) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, and the burden of proof lies upon them.

1. These revisions arises out of the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (II Additional District Judge, Puducherry), Mahe Camp in RCA Nos. 23 & 24 of 2011 confirming the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller in HRCOP Nos. 6 & 7 of 2010.

2. The petitioners in these revisions are unsuccessful tenants before the Rent Control Authorities. The respondents as landlords initiated eviction proceeding against the petitioners in HRCOP Nos. 6 & 7 of 2010 under Section 10(3)(e) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. It is averred by the landlords that the tenants have been inducted in the petition premises on monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- and the premises are used for non-residential purpose. The landlords issued notice on 25.03.2008 requesting the tenants to surrender vacant possession of the petition premises for their own use and occupation but the tenants sent a reply on 03.05.2008 with false allegations.

3. The respondents have stated in the petition that the first son of the second respondent herein was a B. Tech. Student and he has completed his course and is now unemployed; that her second son is also studying computer course and for commencing a computer centre and internet cafe, the tenanted premises is required for their occupation. It is further stated that both the tenants are occupying adjacent shops which would be convenient for their business purpose. The eviction petitions were resisted by the tenants stating that the requirement of the landlords are not bonafide and the petitions were filed with ultimate motive to vacate the tenants.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlords examined two witness and marked Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the tenants neither witnesses were examined nor documents were marked. The Rent Controller, held that the requirement of the landlords is bonafide and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants. Questioning the orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.

5. Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the onus is on the landlords to prove that the requirement is bonafide and it must be averred that they are not occupying any building of their own before seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no pleading by the landlords in this case that they do not own any other building in the town, but the authorities have allowed the eviction petitions placing burden of proof wrongly on the tenants. It is further contended that to seek eviction for commencement of the business, the landlords have to specify that their requirements are bonafide, that the landlords have taken some preparatory steps to commence the business and their financial capacity.

6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that there should be specific pleading with regard to comparative hardship and finding by the authorities. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mattulal vs. Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 C 1596 wherein it is observed as follows -

"12. The question would still remain whether there were proper grounds on which this finding of fact could be interfered with by the High Court. It is now well settled by several decisions of this Court including the decision in Sarvate T.B.'s case (2) and Smt. Kamla Soni's case (1) that mere assertion on the part of the landlord that he requires the non-residential accommodation in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business is not decisive. It is for, the court to determine the truth of the assertion and also whether it is bona fide. The test which has to be applied is an objective test and not a subjective one and merely because a landlord asserts that he wants the non-residential accommodat